As has been the case with cricket of late, a debate as important as the implementation of the Decision Review System (DRS) has degenerated to India v the world. The BCCI's my-way-or-the-highway approach and the shrill response from some of the other countries threatens to stand in the way of a reasonable discussion about the genuine issues regarding the DRS in its current form.

Making DRS mandatory is a move that has huge consequences for the game, and we can't talk enough before implementing it. No matter how persuasive the argument for DRS is, no matter how heavy-handed the BCCI can sometimes be, in its present form the DRS needs discussion. On various levels.

The first might be naïve, and can be got out of the way quickly. The DRS does not sit right with a sport that prides itself in fining people for showing dissent over umpire's decisions. And what of the poor bowlers; now they can't celebrate spontaneously, a raised finger no longer guarantees them a wicket. They have to watch the striker discuss painstakingly with the non-striker whether he looked not-out, and whether it would be fun to challenge the decision despite being plumb because he is the last recognised batsman. Such things are irritants, yes, but a crucial inside edge that wasn't spotted is a bigger problem for the public that pays to watch cricket.

There are other issues, ones that concern the tools being used for the system, that should strike a chord, concerns also aired by Sambit Bal and a few informed blogs. At the heart of the argument lies the unease with the blurring lines between devices for entertainment and decision-making, with the broadcasters' licensees assuming the umpires' role, especially when the ICC neither pays nor controls them.

The handling of ball-tracking technology by humans has produced some silly moments. One such example was when Virender Sehwag, quite symbolically, became the first batsman to be given lbw after a bowler challenged the original not-out decision. The ball had hit his front pad barely in front of leg stump, and then deviated onto the back pad in front of middle stump, but the tracking device failed to note that deflection and joined the dots directly, hardly evidence you would want to be hanged by.

There are other examples, too, and the doubts specifically revolve around the predictive element of the technology. Neither of the two common brands of tracking technology, Hawk Eye and Virtual Eye, is perfect or immune to human mistakes. Our leap of faith, however, is absolute - so absolute that commentators and spectators have stopped using their brains. Virtual Eye admits that entertainment and decision-making are horses of two different colours. It prefers to provide the umpires with facts until the ball strikes the batsman, and then leave the rest to the on-field umpire, who knows which way and how hard the wind is blowing and how the pitch is behaving, better than the system whose camera is not even placed right behind the stumps.

Hawk Eye is more optimistic about being able to replace the umpire, and is also keen to point out flaws with Virtual Eye. The BCCI remains unconvinced. Why the BCCI is not convinced is not clear, just like it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all, or why - if it is used as an umpiring tool - it is not minded by the ICC and the ACSU, or why we have to blindly believe its accuracy and not assess it independently, or why the ICC doesn't say so if it has assessed it independently.

All these doubts may seem like splitting hairs, complicating the game, but complicate is exactly what DRS in its current form does. The original purpose of the system wasn't to predict whether the ball would have clipped the leg bail. Its purpose was to spot edges (or their absence), balls pitched outside leg and balls hitting the batsman outside off when offering a shot for lbws. It was introduced for umpires who have trouble grasping basic umpiring rules, and for the odd big mistake made by the good officials. It wasn't meant to be a contest between Ian Gould reckoning that the offbreak would have hit leg stump and Hawk Eye's prediction that it would have missed it by centimetres. When the ICC meets in Hong Kong, it is pertinent that it establishes a distinction between entertainment and decision-making tools, and also reminds itself that the DRS' original purpose was to eliminate howlers.

One of the howler-eliminating tools that the players - among them Sachin Tendulkar - and fans appreciate is Hot Spot, which is based more on fact than conjecture. Rare exceptions aside, it detects edges accurately, and enjoys more support from players than ball-tracking technology. Without Hot Spot, the DRS can be self-defeating. Consider, for example, Virat Kohli's caught behind dismissal down the leg side in the recent Sabina Park Test. Going by Kohli's reaction, he would have challenged the call had the DRS been available, or in India's case thrust upon them. The replays, however, were not conclusive either way because of a lack of technology. Such cases rob sides of reviews without actually proving them wrong, and lend validity to Tendulkar's view that the DRS is no good without Hot Spot.

Which brings us to the important question: who will pay for Hot Spot? The ICC, which doesn't make much money from bilateral series, does not want to foot the bill because it might eat into its development budgets. The broadcasters have already paid exorbitantly to buy television rights. The home boards are not rushing to part with their profits. Still, these aren't valid reasons for waiving the minimum technology requirements for the implementation of the DRS. There are unconfirmed reports that when new broadcasting contracts are awarded, Hot Spot will be one of the minimum requirements, which is bound to reduce the value of television rights and affect the boards' revenues. Good luck convincing the BCCI to sell rights at a lower cost, and in countries where Test cricket doesn't invite lucrative TV deals.

It will be nothing short of a coup if the ICC can ensure the availability of Hot Spot in every international match once every host country has signed new TV deals. It will be great common sense if ball-tracking technology is used only until the point of contact, so that we stay true to the original purpose of the DRS, which is to eliminate howlers.

While on the subject of howlers, why stop the elimination of mistakes against a team after it has exhausted its two reviews? On one hand it seems fair punishment for a team's poor use of the system, but it remains denial of justice. It is impractical to ask the television umpire to review every decision, especially in not-out cases because the next ball is delivered quickly. Still, we need to keep looking for a way out.

There are other teething issues that need to be discussed, for they have the potential to turn matches. In a World Cup game, India challenged an lbw call because the umpire's signal of leg-byes eliminated the only thing they thought could come in the way of the lbw: an inside edge. The replays showed an inside edge, the umpire went on to change leg-byes to runs, but India were docked one review, even though the umpire's error, established through replays, was what made them go for it.

During another World Cup game, Abdur Razzak was given out lbw before he successfully reviewed the call, but while the ball was counted, the four leg-byes weren't, which is the current regulation. The team was deprived of a scoring opportunity by an umpiring decision, which was proved to be wrong. In tennis, such points are played again, and fairly so. The ICC is lucky that incident occurred at a relatively innocuous time. Imagine a similar situation with two runs required off the last ball of the World Cup final. These examples are anomalies and should have been dealt with at the first available opportunity. The first available opportunity was at the ICC cricket committee meeting soon after the World Cup. Did they even study such minor but potentially controversial incidents before passing the DRS in its current form?

Nothing in life is perfect, though, and all these doubts about the DRS don't deny that, in principle, the system is good for cricket. Yet the ICC's - and the cricketing world's - obsession with getting India on board, as opposed to making the DRS as foolproof and as true to the cause as possible, is rather unhealthy. Perhaps part of the reason is the BCCI's unflattering reputation. Perhaps the BCCI's reasons for opposing the DRS in its current form are different from those stated above. You never know with the BCCI, do you?

On the other hand, we have the rest of the world not open to discussion because it is the BCCI that is raising the issue against DRS. It is evident in how the otherwise terrific commentators in England and the West Indies have moaned more in the last month than they have discussed the DRS since its inception. Newspapers in England have written that India don't want the system because Tendulkar and MS Dhoni don't want to fall lbw to Graeme Swann when not offering shots. Go figure.

Though I was skeptical about the article, I still went ahead and read the article and wow - this article was just awesome. Sidharth Monga asks all the right questions unlike Sambit Bal's more ambiguous article. Great work Sidharth - really very good piece of writing...!!!

Shishir
on June 29, 2011, 13:13 GMT

I hope that the DRS, in future, doesn't become a reason for disrespecting the umpires / their job. Guess many of the comments / articles assume the umpires as outsiders to the whole sport, which is not correct. While there is so much of hoopla around umpire's mistakes and how it is a paid job and they are supposed to be 100% correct at all times, do we ever give a thought to a mistake committed by bowlers, or batsmen, or fielders for that matter? Ever imagine players not paid due to bad performance? These mistakes are taken as a part of the game, then why not umpire's? FIFA understands this, and hence resists use of technology where it is not required. That's another extreme, though!

The use of DRS is a step in the right direction, of course, as it will reduce the errors (hope so). But again, have we factored in the fact that the decision will still be at umpire's discretion? As Sidharth agrees, "miles to go before we finally get this right"!!

Dummy4
on June 29, 2011, 12:03 GMT

Dear Mr Raghuram. Unfortunately i did not see the India V England match in the world cup, so i can not comment on the decision, perhaps the third umpire made a bad call, perhaps not. I find the 2.5 m rule to be perfectly acceptable. It has always been so that a batsman who has advanced down the pitch has been afforded some benefit of the doubt. Like many critics of Hawkeye i don't think it's predicitve qualities can be 100%, though i believe it is a very good tool and should be used in full. With the benefit of the doubt being given for a player well down the pitch and the need for the whole ball to be hitting or missing the stumps for a decision to be overturned i believe there is enough margin for error built in to make it completely satisfactory. Don't you think there is more correct decisions with the use of Hawkeye than without? There will always be some mistakes.

James
on June 28, 2011, 21:23 GMT

Enjoyable article, and it is a complex issue in some ways. But it's also very simple. DRS means more decisions are correct. There are lots of details to address, but these can evolve over time, just as for example regulations in ODIs are reviewed and change. Personally I would like to see a change where an unsuccessful challenge on which the outcome was inconclusive and therefore the on field decision stayed in place did not result in a lost review. That would iron out some of the issues such as with the Bell decision that seems to have become so totemic. You'll never get any 100% accurate system, but there's ample evidence from the England series I've watched with DRS that it enhances the game.

mo
on June 28, 2011, 20:41 GMT

whereas i think "accurate prediction" or even a so-called "more accurate" ***prediction*** of what may have happened, if there was no impact, with or without the use of technology, is a logical fallacy, or a fool's errand [[[i think *all* possibilities, including that the ball may have shot off to outer space after another impact with the bat while on its way to the stumps, or whatever, are *equally* likely, in the future, by definition... since they have not yet happened! so "more accurate" or "less accurate" possibilities are meaningless, in cricket, and in much of life, as we know it... this is not the same thing as a coin toss with only two permitted possibilities, i.e., the coin is not "permitted" to stand on its side! no such guarantees in cricket!]]], despite that *fact*, as i see it, i think it is possible to calibrate ball trackers with actual balls bowled in the past... then, if the technology proves to be "predictive" at a high rate [say, more than 90%], it *could* be used.

Milind
on June 28, 2011, 16:39 GMT

Great article! Discusses all aspects of DRS

Grass
on June 28, 2011, 9:04 GMT

@inswing: The question is: Has the ICC bothered to verify the ball-tracking tools by independent experts and in all conditions around the world? If not, how can it recommend it to be used when it hasn't bothered to verify the tool being used?

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:18 GMT

Quoting Monga: "or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all" - The current ICC playing conditions require that when the batsman's pads are hit on the full by the ball, the umpire is to assume that the ball will travel in a straight line after pitching negating the effect of spin or seam on the umpire's decision. The Hawk-Eye has been designed to implement this specific playing condition on use to be consistent with the umpiring regulations. This situation renders both the Hawk-Eye's and umpire's calls the same and why you might not find path simulations for full tosses.

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:12 GMT

Cont'd: Tendulkar's LBW by Bucknor in 2004 is famous as well as Dhoni's reprieve by Australian umpire Hill in the 3rd 2008 CB series game vs SL where he was plumb to Murali but not given. That single decision let India to the finals of the series and they eventually won it changing the face of cricket over the last few years. That series was defining in the sense that Aus cricket has been in the decline since then as their aggression has been muted (Ref: Gilchrist) while the Indians have picked up on the aggressive moves. Using Hawk-Eye provides no extra cost to the Hot Spot currently and the ICC's latest move has reduced both the technical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the system though something is better than nothing. The supporters of the DRS want it implemented at any cost just to stop Dhoni and the BCCI from whining about the umpiring all the time despite resisting the fact that the inaccurate Hawk-Eye can suggest more evidence than an average umpire on a tough job.

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:05 GMT

Dear Monga, the point of view is not that the DRS is a magical cure to all maladies. The point on offer is simply that it is better than the umpires alone. For each gaffe associated with the DRS, 7 0r more gaffes by umpires alone can be picked out. The DRS is not here to make decisions, it intends to only provide evidential help. This answers Aditya Anchuri's question. Just like the umpire, the DRS allows Benefit of Doubt to the decisions and that is why the 2.5m rule and ball clipping the bail allowances are in place. In such circumstances, the umpire's call is allowed to reduce controversy. It was made to offer some leeway for the critics but it looks like the critics haven't understood how that works yet. The 1 or 2 review limit is used instead of an unlimited number to restrict it's use to identify howlers. Removing Hawk-Eye (however inaccurate it may be) defeats that purpose as most of the howlers are related to LBWs.

varun
on June 29, 2011, 19:18 GMT

Though I was skeptical about the article, I still went ahead and read the article and wow - this article was just awesome. Sidharth Monga asks all the right questions unlike Sambit Bal's more ambiguous article. Great work Sidharth - really very good piece of writing...!!!

Shishir
on June 29, 2011, 13:13 GMT

I hope that the DRS, in future, doesn't become a reason for disrespecting the umpires / their job. Guess many of the comments / articles assume the umpires as outsiders to the whole sport, which is not correct. While there is so much of hoopla around umpire's mistakes and how it is a paid job and they are supposed to be 100% correct at all times, do we ever give a thought to a mistake committed by bowlers, or batsmen, or fielders for that matter? Ever imagine players not paid due to bad performance? These mistakes are taken as a part of the game, then why not umpire's? FIFA understands this, and hence resists use of technology where it is not required. That's another extreme, though!

The use of DRS is a step in the right direction, of course, as it will reduce the errors (hope so). But again, have we factored in the fact that the decision will still be at umpire's discretion? As Sidharth agrees, "miles to go before we finally get this right"!!

Dummy4
on June 29, 2011, 12:03 GMT

Dear Mr Raghuram. Unfortunately i did not see the India V England match in the world cup, so i can not comment on the decision, perhaps the third umpire made a bad call, perhaps not. I find the 2.5 m rule to be perfectly acceptable. It has always been so that a batsman who has advanced down the pitch has been afforded some benefit of the doubt. Like many critics of Hawkeye i don't think it's predicitve qualities can be 100%, though i believe it is a very good tool and should be used in full. With the benefit of the doubt being given for a player well down the pitch and the need for the whole ball to be hitting or missing the stumps for a decision to be overturned i believe there is enough margin for error built in to make it completely satisfactory. Don't you think there is more correct decisions with the use of Hawkeye than without? There will always be some mistakes.

James
on June 28, 2011, 21:23 GMT

Enjoyable article, and it is a complex issue in some ways. But it's also very simple. DRS means more decisions are correct. There are lots of details to address, but these can evolve over time, just as for example regulations in ODIs are reviewed and change. Personally I would like to see a change where an unsuccessful challenge on which the outcome was inconclusive and therefore the on field decision stayed in place did not result in a lost review. That would iron out some of the issues such as with the Bell decision that seems to have become so totemic. You'll never get any 100% accurate system, but there's ample evidence from the England series I've watched with DRS that it enhances the game.

mo
on June 28, 2011, 20:41 GMT

whereas i think "accurate prediction" or even a so-called "more accurate" ***prediction*** of what may have happened, if there was no impact, with or without the use of technology, is a logical fallacy, or a fool's errand [[[i think *all* possibilities, including that the ball may have shot off to outer space after another impact with the bat while on its way to the stumps, or whatever, are *equally* likely, in the future, by definition... since they have not yet happened! so "more accurate" or "less accurate" possibilities are meaningless, in cricket, and in much of life, as we know it... this is not the same thing as a coin toss with only two permitted possibilities, i.e., the coin is not "permitted" to stand on its side! no such guarantees in cricket!]]], despite that *fact*, as i see it, i think it is possible to calibrate ball trackers with actual balls bowled in the past... then, if the technology proves to be "predictive" at a high rate [say, more than 90%], it *could* be used.

Milind
on June 28, 2011, 16:39 GMT

Great article! Discusses all aspects of DRS

Grass
on June 28, 2011, 9:04 GMT

@inswing: The question is: Has the ICC bothered to verify the ball-tracking tools by independent experts and in all conditions around the world? If not, how can it recommend it to be used when it hasn't bothered to verify the tool being used?

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:18 GMT

Quoting Monga: "or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all" - The current ICC playing conditions require that when the batsman's pads are hit on the full by the ball, the umpire is to assume that the ball will travel in a straight line after pitching negating the effect of spin or seam on the umpire's decision. The Hawk-Eye has been designed to implement this specific playing condition on use to be consistent with the umpiring regulations. This situation renders both the Hawk-Eye's and umpire's calls the same and why you might not find path simulations for full tosses.

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:12 GMT

Cont'd: Tendulkar's LBW by Bucknor in 2004 is famous as well as Dhoni's reprieve by Australian umpire Hill in the 3rd 2008 CB series game vs SL where he was plumb to Murali but not given. That single decision let India to the finals of the series and they eventually won it changing the face of cricket over the last few years. That series was defining in the sense that Aus cricket has been in the decline since then as their aggression has been muted (Ref: Gilchrist) while the Indians have picked up on the aggressive moves. Using Hawk-Eye provides no extra cost to the Hot Spot currently and the ICC's latest move has reduced both the technical effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness of the system though something is better than nothing. The supporters of the DRS want it implemented at any cost just to stop Dhoni and the BCCI from whining about the umpiring all the time despite resisting the fact that the inaccurate Hawk-Eye can suggest more evidence than an average umpire on a tough job.

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 7:05 GMT

Dear Monga, the point of view is not that the DRS is a magical cure to all maladies. The point on offer is simply that it is better than the umpires alone. For each gaffe associated with the DRS, 7 0r more gaffes by umpires alone can be picked out. The DRS is not here to make decisions, it intends to only provide evidential help. This answers Aditya Anchuri's question. Just like the umpire, the DRS allows Benefit of Doubt to the decisions and that is why the 2.5m rule and ball clipping the bail allowances are in place. In such circumstances, the umpire's call is allowed to reduce controversy. It was made to offer some leeway for the critics but it looks like the critics haven't understood how that works yet. The 1 or 2 review limit is used instead of an unlimited number to restrict it's use to identify howlers. Removing Hawk-Eye (however inaccurate it may be) defeats that purpose as most of the howlers are related to LBWs.

RAGHURAM
on June 28, 2011, 6:54 GMT

@Jono Makim....I am happy that you quoted a cricketing law that if the batsman has been hit on the full, the umpire must assume that the ball travels onwards in a straight line, whether the bowler is a spinner or a fast bowler. Would appreciate, if you could also clear my doubt as to why Ian Bell was given not out (by both the onfield and the third umpire when the decision was reviewed by India) in the WC match against India, when the ball hit the batsman's pad in front of the middle stump ???? Don't you find that the 2.5 rule was absurd and against the cricket law quoted by you ???? That is why it is correctly said, "DONT MIX TECHNOLOGY WITH HUMAN MIND".... ANY ANSWERS MR. JONO ????

RAGHURAM
on June 28, 2011, 5:28 GMT

It is not understood how ICC is going to make DRS mandatory with Hot Spot Technology not available across the Globe. Further, who is going to foot the bill. Will it be ICC, the home board or the Broadcaster ??? ANY ANSWERS ???

Dummy4
on June 28, 2011, 1:50 GMT

This is a superb article.. One of the best I read in Cricinfo.

Kalyan
on June 27, 2011, 23:30 GMT

I think I am shedding happy tears..The most sensible article I have read in a long time..Well done Monga,

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 18:44 GMT

@Evilpengwinz: A strong wind could blow the ball after pitching ;) haha. Seriously, but one of the problems with Hawkeye is the fact that they say it is inaccurate after 2.5 m, but not until that point. Obviously it is something to do with the camera's field of vision, but having been a former student of physics, optics and graphics myself, I know that there is a some kind of continuum and 2.5 m seems like a rather arbitrary cutoff. Also, it's weird that when the ball is just clipping a stump they leave it to the umpire -- don't they trust their own system? In any triangulation technology, the system processes each frame sent from a particular camera and then identify the group of pixels corresponding to the image of the ball. What if the ball becomes slightly older, out of shape, or discolored (as cricket balls do)? Does that introduce an error in the triangulation? I want to know! There was a peer-reviewed journal about this in 2008, and I believe that raised some of these points.

Anand
on June 27, 2011, 18:27 GMT

Wow what attention to detail. Hats off to Mr Monga! I almost want it to be mandatory for every one to read this article and Mr Sambit Bal's on DRS before posting hardly thought out suggestions by the the blind antagonists of BCCI .

rahul
on June 27, 2011, 17:51 GMT

I am more and more convinced that India's stand against DRS is legitimate. It is useful only in limited sense and should be used to make decisions that are clear. Edges with hot-spot or balls pitching outside leg stump, these are always clear with DRS. Other areas like the ridiculous 2.5 meter rule just show where DRS should not be used. As for Tendulkar and Dhoni padding up to Swann, they will need ball tracking technology only to locate the ball after it has been hit out the stadium. Eng journos need to go back and watch the Ind-Eng WC match re-runs.

A
on June 27, 2011, 17:42 GMT

AMAZING ARTICLE...I partially agree with BCCI as DRS is not fool proof. What Siddart Monga missed one of the most biggest decisions on W'Cup was in the semi-final match between India vs Pak where Ajmal's delivery got Tendulkar LBW decision by on-field umpire but when it was reffered to DRS the ball tracking system showed it had missed the leg stump by a 0.01 inches. Even the umpire shook his head thought how did that ball missed the stumps. DRS is surely not fool proof and will be a over budgets for smaller countries like Zim,WI,Pak & Banglades.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 17:41 GMT

To me it looks like some countries wanted DRS just to oppose BCCI just for the sake of opposing it. They refused to see big picture. However practically they probable never considered thr $50K per day expense. Do countries like WI , Pakistan have the financial resources to implement it. BCCI opposed it but only they alongwith Aus /Eng/SA can afford it without pinching a big hole in their pockets. I wont be surprised if in a couple of years SL /WI/Pakistan ask for financial aid to implement it and that would mean borrowing money from BCCI and then voting in their favor always. I understand Indian politicians quite well and they have really played a big game quite well.

Rajnish
on June 27, 2011, 15:57 GMT

this is the quality of analysis and reasoning expected from a cricinfo article. columnist like Sharda Ugra would do well to write for daily newspapers or entertainment sites like Rediff. the real issue truly is not whether BCCI is bullying or not but whether DRS is implementable or not and if it is implementable then in what form. brilliant article!!

nilesh
on June 27, 2011, 15:25 GMT

@pomal, I think you are using the mechanics which is valid only in vacuum. In reality, there are a lot of factors that can affect the trajectory of the ball.For example,
1. Remember the so called ball of the century from shane warne? This ball includes a lot of drift towards the leg stump. The ball path is not the straight line from the bowler's arm to the pitch, but a curved one in fact. Your simplistic model would never agree to this, because it does not include the effect of wind.
2. Swing/reverse swing: The ball has inherent capability to produce sideways movement. This swing is governed by aerodynamics of the ball and ball condition. There is no way a system can use ball condition as a parameter to make prediction.
3. Late Swing: Its even more challenging. Because, late swing is not a scientifically scrutinized phenomena. Not many have done research on the given subject.

If the given system is bound to produce the errors, there is no use of 'paying' for it.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 14:59 GMT

excellent column...
It's good to exclude Hawk-Eye...
and it became possible only for BCCI...

Rupesh
on June 27, 2011, 14:48 GMT

" it is not clear how every now and then a projection looks improbable, or how it is perfect at 2.4 metres but unreliable at 2.5, how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full, or the bounce when a batsman is hit on a half-volley, or why we don't get to see simulations of some balls at all, or why" -- These things are not a matter of feelings or opinions. You can factually verify exactly how accurate hawkeye is in all these situations. It is not imagination. All one needs to do is to test hawkeye with different bowlers, pitches, and wind conditions with lots of different deliveries. It is trivially easy to do. It has already been done, but can be done again by independent experts. But irrational minds are not satisfied with rational arguments. Umpires will give not out because the batsman was "too far forward" and people are fine with that, but are outraged when hawkeye does the same thing, except more objectively.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 13:50 GMT

Excellent article ! One of the best articles written on the DRS issue compared to the tripe that the likes of Sharda Ugra and Englishmen post. It's the time of the year when BCCI bashing is the coolest thing. Surprised to someone swimming against the tide.

Sulaimaan
on June 27, 2011, 13:28 GMT

Indians are making a noise.............anyone listening?

Sachin
on June 27, 2011, 13:26 GMT

Excellent article! I love everything about the DRS that enables making decisions based on fact ... but the predictive piece depends on how the system has been programmed to think and does not take many on ground facts into consideration. Also the question about who will pay is an important one.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 13:11 GMT

I stopped reading when you asked how can Hawkeye predict the turn of the ball from an offspinner if the batsman has been hit on the full. You clearly don't understand the rules of cricket. The law for this is very simple, the umpire must assume that the ball travels onwards in a straight line, that you don't know this and you have written an article on the use of DRS is absurd.

Rahul
on June 27, 2011, 12:43 GMT

One point the well-written article fails to mention is consistency. DRS is a smattering of technologies, which may or may not be available based on the broadcaster. The absence of these technologies means that there are weaknesses that the playing sides need to be aware of. Take for instance the recent announcement of using DRS in England. I quote, "However the DRS used in the England-India series will be without the aid of ball-tracking technology, which means line decisions for lbw appeals cannot be referred. For example, if the ball pitches outside leg stump and the batsman is given out lbw, the batsman can appeal against the verdict but the third umpire will not have the benefit of the ball-tracking technology to ascertain where the ball pitched."

Again Tendulkar is right. Consistency is the key here. Why do teams need to be aware of the intricacies from place to place. Implement the DRS like any cricket rule to be used consistently irrespective of where the game is being played.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 12:05 GMT

And yes, finally a decent piece on the DRS. Sid Monga is one of the few people on cricinfo who actually understands the situation before writing a piece on it ;)

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 12:01 GMT

its good now that udrs is included with hot spot and snico......and also no hawk eye,if the ball tracking is suspect then use it when all are satisfied with its authenticity,but checking if ball pitched outside legstumps,should be done by replays till we have a revised hawk eye.....come on India...lets review some

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 11:55 GMT

Pathetic article...it seems as if decisions only go the wrong way against the Indians. And teams are given two challenges and if u use them stupidly then it's denying justice even though u have no common sense and used your reviews stupidly. The whole world is against India and instead if making the system more full-proof. Then what is India doing. BCCI is the richest cricketing board in the world so shouldn't they stop moaning and maybe try and help make the system full proof. If BCCI wants perfection then the first place they should look at is their own board. ICC says it needs 25000 dollars for a DRS implemented test match. Niranjan Shah says it needs 60000 dollars. Where does the rest of the money go Mr. Shah??

Aditya
on June 27, 2011, 11:29 GMT

@Evilpengwinz - Your physics lessons of age 14 won't quite work well in predicting a ball's path. Factors like wind speed, how much late-swing the ball is getting, bounce of the pitch can probably be better judged by the umpire himself. "If the batsman is hit on the full, umpires assume ball is going straight?" And you seriously don't think that would be wrong? Wow. If the batsman is hit on the full, the DRS has no data-points to predict the spin on the ball, is the point here.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 11:17 GMT

Basically I'm a little anti technology, and im tired of it invading into every sphere. This is sport, we need the human element. Howlers or whatever, for or against your favourite team, it just doesn't matter, its part of the game. Pretty soon when the technology is good enough, we'll eliminate umpires completely, wait and see, there'll be some people lobbying for that too. Can't we just have the human element, please? i'm just tired of it, human mistakes, albeit very frustrating, are pardonable

some 20 years into cricket i really don't want to see cyborg's bowling at batsmen

Nilansh
on June 27, 2011, 10:51 GMT

Nice article siddharth.
@evilpengwinz: you want to talk physics? Lets have a discussion. I'm surprised how some people claim to know a great deal about science and technology when they hardly have a clue what is being talked about. Maybe you learn some different kind of physics in your country. Or maybe you dont learn at all. Coming here and trying to prove you are a physics expert is no use if you don't even know heisenberg's uncertainity principle. That of course is at very molecular level. There are various other factors which influence the trajectory of the wall. If you really want to learn, feel free to contact me. I won't even charge you much. :) Ignorance and stupidity must be eradicated at any cost.

rustyryan
on June 27, 2011, 10:46 GMT

Sid, Veera and Harsha are the best article writers in cricinfo. Finally some article where BCCI is not made as the default villain. Tendulkar has been the bunny of wrong decisions in his entire life. Now eng gonna give him another chance and he's going to make eng pay heavily. Wait and watch.

Shruti
on June 27, 2011, 9:28 GMT

Tendulkar is right. DRS is useless without hotspot and sneako. What is the use of paying so much for a technology which is not even full-proof. All those who blindly support the DRS should also be able to answer all the above raised questions

Manoj
on June 27, 2011, 9:21 GMT

@Evilpengwinz I think your views on physics gives a good indication of what is wrong with science education in the schools in England.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 9:11 GMT

this Article paints the hawkeye/virtualeye as useless bits of technology whihc is misleadinf. althought the tracking ability after the ball has hit the "pad" is debatable (i never thought it should be used to predict the path" the ability to track the ball is 100% accurate and should be used to decide where the ball pitches and where it hit the batsman.

Cricket
on June 27, 2011, 9:09 GMT

I tried to post in favour of DRS on previous articles on the topic, and everyone was against it. So let me try to argue for it.. but this time, based on the technology of DRS.

Clearly Hotspot is something that everyone agrees with, so let us take Hawkeye. All it does is to capture the image of the ball from multiple angles and use triangulation to compute its exact position. If we know the exact position at which the ball pitches (no guess work here) and its trajectory and speed for the next few frames (of high-speed camera), one can use the basics of projectile motion to predict how the ball will move for the next few frames. The computer can do this more accurately that any human. The pitch conditions will not affect the projectile motion.

I do not know why people un-necessarily complicate what is a very simple technology to test. Just bowl a thousand balls at the stumps capture the actual impact on the stumps. Feed the Hawkeye contraption with data points that stop at 0.5, 1.0 , 1.5, 1.75 mtrs from the stumps and see what it comes up with and compare it to the actual impact which is already known. If it matches you have a winner. I'am pretty sure that the makers of H/E are not that dumb to not realize this much. In fact this is the only way to test this technology and Iam pretty sure that they would have done this. They stand to lose a lot more credibility than anything the ICC or BCCI ever had. I had previously written to MCC and they confirmed that they had indeed tested out H/E and Virtual Eye independently and that both were found to be highly accurate.

Bheem
on June 27, 2011, 8:52 GMT

Good sense has prevailed! HotSpot and UDRS have not been sacrificed due to 1 contentious tool (hawkeye predictive paths).

adithi
on June 27, 2011, 8:35 GMT

and pls demand a pay hike from cricinfo. You may be poached by BCCI, for writing the only piece justifying them

adithi
on June 27, 2011, 8:24 GMT

Simply the most unbiased and THE best article on DRS. Please send a copy to your senior editor Sharda Ugra.

Sunil
on June 27, 2011, 8:23 GMT

@Evilpengwinz:

Your 'Physics' seems to be quite poor. It is not just about the gravity and speed of the ball. Had it been so, there would have been same 'carry' to wicketkeepers throughout the world for a given bowler. But that does not happen. Does it?

Bounce and carry also depends on the 'nature' of pitch. i.e, how 'hard' pitch is, how much grass is there on the pitch and how much is the wear and tear with passage of the day's play!!

A 90mph ball pitched just back of length by Steyn at Kanpur pitch goes ONLY up to the batsman's knee, same ball at Lords will rise up to the waist!!
Add effect of wind on ball swing to pitch nature, we have much tougher physics than simple gravity, hight and speed.

Calibration of Hawk-eye for each pitch will/might solve the problem up to some extent but what about the rough patches or two paced pitches? and how many times in a match this calibration should be done to minimize this error?

BCCI is absolutely right: Umpires over software geeks!!

Lawrence
on June 27, 2011, 8:23 GMT

Where available, DRS SHOULD be used. The financial reason against it holds no water. Equally empty is the view point that if a technology is not 100% right, then don't use it. For one, how can it get better if it is not used in the first place? And two, if howlers can be avoided, then why not? There is no cap to the number of howlers that can be avoided - the key is making the right challenges. The article above focuses a lot on the few occasions inconsistencies happened while using technology; it ignores a plethora of other occasions when technology saved the day.

While long and articulate, this article does not put forward anything new or convincing.

Surendar
on June 27, 2011, 8:16 GMT

Excellent article by Sidharth Monga on DRS. He is right , since because BCCI is raising the issue all other boards without even applying a basic common sense is supporting the DRS in its current form.It is not a rocket science to understand that DRS in its current form is not good.

Also it is really funny to read that british media is commenting that Tendulkar is afraid of Swann... good joke. Swann is a kid when compared to tendulkar and he will be thrashed by indian team and not only tendulkar.

Cricinfo - please post this comment.

Ameya
on June 27, 2011, 8:09 GMT

No bias...Only truth...A must read article for all the cricket fans around the world!

Bheem
on June 27, 2011, 8:06 GMT

Sid Monga, this is by far the BEST article on the DRS anywhere in the CricketSphere! This is a MUST-READ for the ICC Cricket Committee too for it raises some extremely important points about the shortcomings of the DRS in its current form, and how it has moved away from its original purpose of eliminating howlers.

Bheem
on June 27, 2011, 8:04 GMT

Sid Monga, this is by far the BEST article on the DRS anywhere in the CricketSphere! This is a MUST-READ for the ICC Cricket Committee too for it raises some extremely important points about the shortcomings of the DRS in its current form, and how it has moved away from its original purpose of eliminating howlers.

M S
on June 27, 2011, 8:03 GMT

Good article - there are other issues like weather conditions , wind , state of pitch ( bounce etc - which may vary from 1st day to 5th day ) whereas HawkEye or Virtual Eye use "consistent" bounce perception. Having used DRS for sometime now, umpires around the world have becime more "aggressive" on LBW's - there has been more lbw decisions ( even not taking inot account DRS led decisions) in the last 5 years than ever before. DRS is a step forward but not the perfect system - i agree with BCCI and Indian players that more research needs to be done. As for English and WI commentators, it does seem more whining than anything else

Crick
on June 27, 2011, 7:51 GMT

nice article, but still cricket will be better with DRS than without it, you wouldn't able to get a 100% system anyway.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 7:50 GMT

Hawkeye's own document (www.hawkeye.com) on its accuracy and believability states that hawk-eye operators are required to "manually fine tune the point on the trajectory where interception with the batsman was made. Automatically the system is only able to determine the interception point to the nearest frame of Hawk-Eye video running at 106 frames per second. This can be improved manually and is the only way to ensure that the interception point is accurate to 5mm...". Hence, Hawkeye staff member's judgement replaces that of umpires who have gone through umpire training and ICC monitoring processes. Also if the primary purpose is eliminating howlers - ICC should mandate that the third umpire should review all out and not-out deicisions - not just those that players (who don't necessarily have the best view of proceedings) using specified technology that must include Sniko and Hot Spot.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 7:33 GMT

One step at a time...that is how most improvements are made..DRS in its current form is that first step...take it....it will bring down the % of errors for sure...then go improve...

R
on June 27, 2011, 7:29 GMT

Monga has made a reasoned arguement in the debate which otherwise is simply viewed as BCCI vs some other boards. He mentioned about 2 instances, there is also the instance of Ian Bell's LBW in world cup. India was docked a review even though the limitation was technology, or unwillingness to accept technology, by ICC's committee. We already have line decissions being accepted but umpires often give wrong decissions by not using this technology. Why cant the system be simplified ? There is enough time between 2 deliveries for the third umpire to see the replay and indicate if there is a doubt. Any other form is merely having technology and not using it.

Akshay
on June 27, 2011, 7:12 GMT

This is the first piece on DRS that I feel is not affected by bias or prejudice. Very well written! I've always felt that DRS is no good without HotSpot and that the third umpire must be charged with reviewing the decision made by the on-field umpire. This way everyone will get a fair chance and not just top order batsmen who use up the two reviews.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 6:59 GMT

BCCI'S Shashank Manohar raised a valid point..I was surprised that a valid point was made from BCCI..He said that boards like BCCI,CA,English board can afford to support and fund the technology for DRS..but what happens when Zimbabwe and Bangladesh play..or what when NZ and WI play? These Boards do not have that much revenue generated from television rights.So if the figure of $60000 is true for single match...its too much to afford for these boards.So how can ICC want to include it mandatory if they are not funding the technology?

sudharsan
on June 27, 2011, 6:48 GMT

And a match at chennai btween WI and ENG in WC. Gayle was given out LBW to a spinner by onfield umpire and in challnge, it was visible that ball was only hitting a small part of the stump. so the umpire decsion stands.
Sulaimn benn was given not out for the same mirror image by onfield umpire and ENG challenged. And only since small part of the stumps was hit, the onfield decison stands.
The impact and the height was similar in both the cases, but the result is different.
So where is the constitency in DRS?
Either technolgy should be used fully or never it should be used at all

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 6:43 GMT

Just because HawkEye/VirtualEye has an animation as to how the ball would have traveled if it hadn't struck the pad does not make it so. It is just a prediction, a good one nonetheless but still a prediction. This is why they have the 2.5m rule -- at that distance and beyond the predictability is unacceptably poor but it isnt exactly perfect 2.4m away either.

Remember a ball takes ~1 sec to get to the batsman which is 30 frames (of a standard video camera) of which 26-27 frames are when the ball is not near the batsman. So it is usually unlikely that there is a frame that captures the exact point of impact of where the ball hit the pad. Without it, a lot of information is simply lost and no judgement can be reasonably made.

Realy a nice article.
Still i remember that sehwag wicket. its an horrible decision. it went unnoticed during that time. It would have been the biggest debate, had such decison was given now.
Every team has to taste the poison in DRS, before telling a conventional "NO" to DRS.

Tahir
on June 27, 2011, 6:19 GMT

Off course players should not be given the liberty to call for reviews. It is against the very nature of the game where the umpire's decision is final. Cricket is like life where God's decision is final no matter how badly challenged we get. This is life my dear and cricket depicts life where things come and we face despite sophisticated technologies. Japan had an early warning system and also US also wants to predict tornadoes. The only thing that should be allowed is umpire's review if he/she is in doubt then can go upstairs to check. Time can be saved by integrating the technology in some meaningful way where umpire can pull out a remote device and get a red or green light directly instead of multiple reviews. A panel upstairs can simply vote including the commentators/cameramen. It will help umpres take better decisions and that should be the only objective.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 6:12 GMT

DRS is not perfect at all. It has lot of errors in it, it as to be improved before making mandatory.

1. Without Hotspot and Sniko, it is utter waste to use DRS
2. Rectify the mistakes of Hawk Eye and bring more options other hawk eye
3. DRS is too costly without even having Hotspot.
5. DRS in Cricket is totally different compared to Tennis, Even in tennis the review was made public.

Procheta
on June 27, 2011, 6:04 GMT

Completely agree with the what Sidharth Monga has said vis-a-vis requiring Hot Spot as a mandatory part of UDRS as well as all the nitty-gritty of 4 leg byes being (dis)allowed and teams not being charged with a review if the umpire's original leg bye decision is wrong etc. Where I don't agree with Sidharth is that I think Hawk Eye must be mandatory and used as well. It is very simple physics that tracks and predicts a ball's trajectory after it has pitched. The line trajectory is just a straight line from the point where the ball pitches to where it hits the pad and projecting that line straight to the plane of the stumps. The length involves simple classical mechanics of the angle and direction of the ball IMMEDIATELY after it pitches (being tracked by multiple high-speed cameras). Within 3-4 cm of the ball pitching, one can then predict the projectile path of the ball taking into account air resistance and easily predict if it will go below or above the stumps. Just use the it!

kundan
on June 27, 2011, 5:50 GMT

Best article on DRS...well thought out and raising genuine questions on DRS...all the blind supporters of DRS please GO FIGURE!!!

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 5:39 GMT

DRS not worth the cost....that money can be used for developing the cricket..

Nishan
on June 27, 2011, 5:24 GMT

True that its not perfect but what it comes down to is....ask any player in the world (except for dhoni n tendulkar) if they'd rather have DRS or not and they wld all say they'd prefer to have it!! You have talked about all the mistakes made by DRS but how about the ones it got right?? For example in the last test series between Eng n SL...thilan samaraweera was given out and when reviewed it was proved that it was clearly not out...if SL had lost that wkt their tail would have been exposed and the likelyhood of a collapse which would have led to a loss was great!! IND vs. WI is another example of why it is needed....times change and when their is technology which ultimately does indeed bring to light and correct bad decisions at 75-80% of d time...then why not use it?? Wld u rather see tendulkar given out caught behind on 99 when he has not nicked it at all??? Nothing in life is perfect but you will never come near perfecting something if u give up on it!!

Sanjiv
on June 27, 2011, 5:22 GMT

I am for progressive technology. I am not for error-prone technology. Just like I would like the gearbox technology in my car to work 100% of the time. May be there is a better technology out there in the making, to achieve 100% reliable results.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 4:57 GMT

There may be some arguments against DRS in its present form, but everyone knows it is a much better and fairer system than depending on the on-field umpires. So, let India support it and implement it universally.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 4:50 GMT

Thank you for writing what all of us are thinking! Now if only the BCCI can make its arguments this coherently. I think part of the reason the ECB and Cricket Australia are trying to ram this down our throats is because they're wistful of the "good old days" under the Imperial Cricket Conference when they had two votes each and everyone else had one. Now the power centre has shifted and they don't like it. Hence this movement to get this joke of a system implemented for all at all costs. And like I said, the BCCI isn't helping with its inarticulate response either.

Andy
on June 27, 2011, 4:49 GMT

Getting bored of reading comments regarding the accuracy of the ball tracking. You can easily tell how fast the ball was bowled, and you know the trajectory of the ball when it leaves the bowler's hand. You know the dimensions of the wicket, and how strong gravity is. That's enough information to calculate accurately where the ball pitches. If the ball spins or moves off the seam afterwards, it doesn't matter, because you just do the same maths again for after the ball pitches.

Anyone who argues with that is arguing that speed guns are all wrong, that cricket wickets aren't actually 22 yards, and that gravity actually gets stronger when Graeme Swann bowls, just to confuse batsmen. Infact, I shouldn't be posting this, I should be offering Physics lessons that you get taught at the age of 14 in England to the BCCI ;)

BTW: "how it judges the amount of spin when an offbreak hits a batsman on the full" - It doesn't. If the batsman is hit on the full, umpires assume ball is going straight?

Mehul
on June 27, 2011, 4:41 GMT

Firstly congrats ti Siddharth for a great article. The point brought out about DRS being used as a stratergic thing rather than a technology to eliminate howlers is very well highlighted. What could be done to avoid this is penalising teams 10 runs for every unsucessful review (or granting the other team 10 runs as extras). This will prevent teams from using this as a run saving mechanism (as the other team would anyways get 10 runs if the review was overturned). Also, teams would not review the last recognised batsman out of hopefulness just because they had a review left. Teams would go for reviews ONLY IF THEY WERE 100% SURE OF AN ERROR by the onfield umpire and thus eliminate howlers, which was the basic purpose of the system. This penalty will also not require having a cap on the number of reviews a team can have per innings. They can review every time they feel that a decision is incorrect, if they are willing to get fined 10 runs if they review incorrectly.

Premkumar
on June 27, 2011, 4:37 GMT

sane article... really valid points to be discussed before blindly implementing DRS across all boards...

chandana
on June 27, 2011, 4:25 GMT

In the recent test series in England, Sangakkara was given out caught behind although hot spot was inconclusive (forget who the 3rd ump was). There have been many cases of runouts/ stumpings given due tot he wrong angle of the camera!DRS has to be a tool and not the master for the umpire. Also if it is going to be used in conjunction then the laws need to be revised and written to suit the modern game.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 3:59 GMT

It would be better if ICC bares half the cost for DRS in every match.. Not all Cricketing nations can afford $60,000 a match.. Its no big deal for BCCI though..

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 3:24 GMT

I would like all of us to look at this issue in a broder picture.
Why DRS?
To avoid a glaring mistake from on field umpire which may change the cource of the game.
Which is a glaring mistake?
A decission on which the whole world watching the game have differnt view than the umpire.
How do we get that differnt/better view?
We are having the privilege of watching the whole action in slow motion with close up angle, some time supplemented with audio/visual enhancements ( snikko/hawkeye/hotspot)
Which are all the events that may be reflected as glaring mistake?
Bowler overstepping/side stepping and ended up taking a wicket and viceversa
Ball pitched outswide legstemp but given LBW and vice versa
Bat/pad catches/ inside edges and few more like this

With what ever technology available on the ground, if the viewers can spot the mistake, the third umpire too can and he should be the one trusted with DRS. He can review every decission and override the onfield decission if necessary

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 3:05 GMT

A well thought article. Can't agree more with Sid. I have always believed DRS could be used in the series where Hot- Spot is available. We can't make it mandatory for all the tests. 2 reviews per innings by 1 team can't be argued else every one will try to get everything reviewed. A fixed number is necessary to avoid foul calls for review. No system can be perfect. We can't have a 100% fool proof system. We will have to compromise somewhere but we can still work towards eliminating errors as much as possible while keeping the integrity and beauty of the game intact.

Ankur
on June 27, 2011, 3:04 GMT

I feel they should be allowed 2 reviews/team every day of a test match. And even then they have to be allowed by the umpires. This way everytime Sehwag or Ponting are out at 6 they would run up to the 3rd umpire. However it still eliminates the situation where Bucknor would have to ask Ponting if his team mate grounded a catch or not.

Brilliantly written article to by Sid, he has provided the reasoning the BCCI isn't coming out with.

Siddharth
on June 27, 2011, 3:01 GMT

Sidharth's best article till date !! Abdur Razzak's point made me thinkin why are we using DRS at all !!

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 2:55 GMT

Excellent Article Siddharth... The concerns you voiced are all legitimate. But the technology available should be used to eliminate howlers.. There is no point in opposing something when we don't forget the original purpose!!!

ChakraDhar
on June 27, 2011, 2:38 GMT

Well written article...not sure the board representatives have got this much insight before they discuss.... absolutely loved it...

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 1:42 GMT

I think , it is perfect not to use DRS .DRS will rob the charm of test cricket .

Sidharth, I had exactly the same thought when in the stadium watching the Eng-Ind epic tie. I thought if Dhoni wanted to challenge the last run, because he had a challenge left, that would have meant the batsman being given not out, and India winning the game - cos the run wouldnt count. How do you stop DRS from just being a strategic tool at the hands of teams, and not a howler eliminator? Right now every team uses up DRS reviews if the think they got half a shot at getting a decision.

Luke
on June 27, 2011, 0:56 GMT

Very well said Sidharth! The introduction of the DRS under the guise of eliminating 'howlers' was naive as any team that feels a decision has been unfair will always challenge it should the option to do so be available.
The nuances of using the system are very well highlighted here too - ie the examples of runs scored when a decision is reviewed and how this may be changed depending on the outcome of the review. The BCCI is targeted as a major block but to be fair they really want all the technology to be used and don't complain when Indian players are disadvantaged by the lack of DRS. We keep seeing faults with the system and exploitation by players that wager a nick won't be picked up thus asking for a review (eg Bell in the recent Ashes).
I was always an advocate for letting players make fools of themselves if they wish by asking for frivolous reviews but after seeing how players can use the system unfairly to their advantage I now think umpires should have complete control.

Dummy4
on June 27, 2011, 0:54 GMT

Absolute gem. I can't agree more.

Pradip
on June 27, 2011, 0:21 GMT

Great article. It is absolutely clear why BCCI is opposing this. But I hope they come out with something to get away from some bad umpiring decisions, which usually costs India more than others.

Pardesi
on June 26, 2011, 23:52 GMT

Exactly the points why DRS in current form is not good.
If the objective is to remove howlers , why not review each and every OUT decision, how much time would that take??
without DRS umpires are using that in any case for no-ball why not make that mandatory for all out decisions?
and yes the objective would be to remove howlers not predict

Amar
on June 26, 2011, 22:46 GMT

absolutely agree with this article........India has got good reasons to oppose the DRS in it's current format. DRS is NO GOOD without HOTSPOT. And why limit the number of challenges to only TWO? With umpires like daryl harper, asoka de silva, amish saheeba, there is no guarantee that they won't make multiple "howlers" per innings.

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 22:40 GMT

Sidharth, this is in my opinion the best piece you've written on Cricinfo. Thank you.

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 22:27 GMT

Sidharth,

You may have very well articulated the rationale of BCCI!
Grey areas are always hard to explain. You did very well!

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 22:26 GMT

one of the lengthier articles on cricinfo, but every line makes sense! the original purpose must not be lost.. DRS: a system to eliminate howlers, not review each and every contentious decision... but then DRS without Hotspot is a waste

Sunil
on June 26, 2011, 22:23 GMT

Brilliantly written article.

I am sure, had it been BCCI pushing for DRS, many of 'these' boards (and fans) would be moaning that BCCI is flexing its muscles; because it has money it can afford DRS, it is unfair on other poorer cricket boards ans so on.

BCCI is right in opposing DRS in its present form (for whatever reasons)!!

sandeep
on June 26, 2011, 22:03 GMT

Very well said!!! I hope that should be idea behind the reluctance of BCCI with DRS.But, I like specially like, "Newspapers in England have written that India don't want the system because Tendulkar and MS Dhoni don't want to fall lbw to Graeme Swann when not offering shots". Could not control my laugh.All this is definitely spicing up the builtup for an epic series between the two best Test playing countries (at the moment).Cant wait to watch!! It would be a cracker of a series.

Naveen
on June 26, 2011, 21:56 GMT

Liked the last paragraph...i wonder why English is so particular about DRS?...i guess Swann is more dependent on DRS than his bowling skill. And what makes me Laugh is English jokers think DRS is Accurate Prediction and it can never be wrong.

What really saddens me is People like boycott is in that band wagon...which means someone is running a very good lobby in England to sell Hawkeye.

Denzil
on June 26, 2011, 21:48 GMT

Excellent presentation of the anomalies that need to be ironed out. I would suggest that, when universal DRS is implemented, the appeal against the umpires decision is removed from the teams, and instead the third umpire should overrule any clear errors by his on-field colleagues.

PACKIANATH JEBARAJ
on June 26, 2011, 21:37 GMT

Absolutely true. Many of the cricket fans/commentators/boards, who support DRS, are actually refusing to see the inadequacies of the present form of DRS. All they can see is that, BCCI and some of the Senior Cricketers in India are against it.
Why would you not just listen to the objections raised and try to rectify them, so that it can be made more dependable and less debatable.
People might have forgotten, When T20 was introduced, BCCI was one of the boards which objected to it.... England one of the main supporters of the format. Now most of the boards esp. English are so upset about the IPL. Any changes brought into the game of cricket, has to be discussed properly before so that once we adopt it, we can still continue to enjoy the game of cricket rather than debates of cricket pundits.

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 21:33 GMT

Well researched article, but there are essentially two different debates. The first is whether the DRS is worth it. The second is whether matches should be played under different systems depending on who plays. There is sufficient consensus that the DRS in its current form is not perfect and it requires more revisions and discussions, which this article contributes to. However, that does not by itself imply that boards get to choose what they want. Sometime back, the FIFA introduced a rule for extra time called the golden goal, which was subsequently revoked. While it was in use, though, it wasn't subject to the whims of certain powerful countries for their own games.

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 21:31 GMT

Till ICC forms universal policies about technologies to be used for DRS, this system is not doing any justice and adds to confusion.Plus I would like to know behind the curtains problem for BCCI of DRS.Is money involved and if there is then the eagerness of world to take out some money from BCCI's pocket is understood, as it always is!!!!!

Harsh
on June 26, 2011, 21:21 GMT

First sane piece on DRS, welcome back Sid Monga :) (I still remind you stay away from Indian-batsman-can't-play-short-ball-well) :D

No featured comments at the moment.

Harsh
on June 26, 2011, 21:21 GMT

First sane piece on DRS, welcome back Sid Monga :) (I still remind you stay away from Indian-batsman-can't-play-short-ball-well) :D

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 21:31 GMT

Till ICC forms universal policies about technologies to be used for DRS, this system is not doing any justice and adds to confusion.Plus I would like to know behind the curtains problem for BCCI of DRS.Is money involved and if there is then the eagerness of world to take out some money from BCCI's pocket is understood, as it always is!!!!!

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 21:33 GMT

Well researched article, but there are essentially two different debates. The first is whether the DRS is worth it. The second is whether matches should be played under different systems depending on who plays. There is sufficient consensus that the DRS in its current form is not perfect and it requires more revisions and discussions, which this article contributes to. However, that does not by itself imply that boards get to choose what they want. Sometime back, the FIFA introduced a rule for extra time called the golden goal, which was subsequently revoked. While it was in use, though, it wasn't subject to the whims of certain powerful countries for their own games.

PACKIANATH JEBARAJ
on June 26, 2011, 21:37 GMT

Absolutely true. Many of the cricket fans/commentators/boards, who support DRS, are actually refusing to see the inadequacies of the present form of DRS. All they can see is that, BCCI and some of the Senior Cricketers in India are against it.
Why would you not just listen to the objections raised and try to rectify them, so that it can be made more dependable and less debatable.
People might have forgotten, When T20 was introduced, BCCI was one of the boards which objected to it.... England one of the main supporters of the format. Now most of the boards esp. English are so upset about the IPL. Any changes brought into the game of cricket, has to be discussed properly before so that once we adopt it, we can still continue to enjoy the game of cricket rather than debates of cricket pundits.

Denzil
on June 26, 2011, 21:48 GMT

Excellent presentation of the anomalies that need to be ironed out. I would suggest that, when universal DRS is implemented, the appeal against the umpires decision is removed from the teams, and instead the third umpire should overrule any clear errors by his on-field colleagues.

Naveen
on June 26, 2011, 21:56 GMT

Liked the last paragraph...i wonder why English is so particular about DRS?...i guess Swann is more dependent on DRS than his bowling skill. And what makes me Laugh is English jokers think DRS is Accurate Prediction and it can never be wrong.

What really saddens me is People like boycott is in that band wagon...which means someone is running a very good lobby in England to sell Hawkeye.

sandeep
on June 26, 2011, 22:03 GMT

Very well said!!! I hope that should be idea behind the reluctance of BCCI with DRS.But, I like specially like, "Newspapers in England have written that India don't want the system because Tendulkar and MS Dhoni don't want to fall lbw to Graeme Swann when not offering shots". Could not control my laugh.All this is definitely spicing up the builtup for an epic series between the two best Test playing countries (at the moment).Cant wait to watch!! It would be a cracker of a series.

Sunil
on June 26, 2011, 22:23 GMT

Brilliantly written article.

I am sure, had it been BCCI pushing for DRS, many of 'these' boards (and fans) would be moaning that BCCI is flexing its muscles; because it has money it can afford DRS, it is unfair on other poorer cricket boards ans so on.

BCCI is right in opposing DRS in its present form (for whatever reasons)!!

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 22:26 GMT

one of the lengthier articles on cricinfo, but every line makes sense! the original purpose must not be lost.. DRS: a system to eliminate howlers, not review each and every contentious decision... but then DRS without Hotspot is a waste

Dummy4
on June 26, 2011, 22:27 GMT

Sidharth,

You may have very well articulated the rationale of BCCI!
Grey areas are always hard to explain. You did very well!

ABOUT COOKIES

We use cookies to help make this website better, to improve our services and for advertising purposes. You can learn more about our use of cookies and change your browser settings in order to avoid cookies by clicking here. Otherwise, we'll assume you are OK to continue.